E V E R Y DA Y C O N S U M E R A E S T H E T I C S

Too Cute to Be Healthy: How Cute Packaging Designs

Affect Judgments of Product Tastiness and Healthiness
BENEDIKT SCHNURR

AB STR ACT In the packaged food market, several brands use cute packaging designs, for example, by displaying
playful colors or funny cartoon-like pictures. However, prior research has not systematically examined how cute pack-
aging designs might affect product perception. In this research, we show that cute packaging designs increase percep-
tions of product tastiness and, at the same time, decrease perceptions of product healthiness. Importantly, as per-
ceptions of both tastiness and healthiness jointly determine purchase intention, we further examine the role of the
product type in order to demonstrate how marketers may benefit from using cute packaging designs. We find that
cute packaging designs increase consumer purchase intention for relative vice products but decrease consumer pur-
chase intention for relative virtue products. This article thus extends the current packaging design literature and dem-
onstrates how marketers can strategically use cute packaging designs to communicate their desired product attributes.
Furthermore, we outline implications for public policy makers.

S
ince 1975, worldwide obesity has nearly tripled, lead-
ing to more than 1.9 billion adults being overweight
in 2016, of which more than 650 million are obese
(http://www.who.int). The major cause of obesity and over-
weight is an imbalance between the number of calories that
people consume through eating and the number of calories
that people expend through physical activity. Consequently,
there are two ways in which obesity can be reduced for con-
sumers: making healthier food choices and exercising more.
The current research focuses on the first: consumers’ food
choices. One critical factor that affects what products people
buy is the packaging. For example, 64% of consumers say
that they have chosen a new product based on the packag-
ing’s visual appeal (Nielsen 2016).
Academic research has investigated how consumers’ prod-
uct perceptions, choices, and consumption are affected by
different food packaging design elements, such as the shape
(Ngo et al. 2013; Fenko, Lotterman, and Galetzka 2016; van
Ooijen et al. 2017), color (Karnal et al. 2016; Mai, Symmank,
and Seeberg-Elverfeldt 2016), transparency (Deng and Sri-
nivasan 2013), imagery (Deng and Kahn 2009; Machiels and
Karnal 2016), and label placement (Dahl et al. 2019). How-
ever, very limited attention has been paid to the phenom-
enon of packaging cuteness, which refers to the fun and play-
fulness associated with a packaging’s appearance (Nenkov
and Scott 2014), and especially how cute packaging designs
might affect product perception and purchase intention. For
example, in the packaged food market, several brands use
playful colors, rounded shapes, or funny cartoon-like pic-
tures. Innocent Drinks makes use of anthropomorphic fruit
pictures on their juice bottles, and Lindt’s chocolate line
“Hello” displays playful colors and typography on its pack-
aging. Other brands, in contrast, tend to refrain from in-
corporating cuteness appeals in their packaging by relying
on rather clean and simple designs. Trader Joe’s juice bottles
and Hershey’s chocolate packages display nothing but re-
duced product information using functional typography (e.g.,
Helvetica) on a monochromatic background.
In response, this research investigates how cute packag-
ing designs influence consumers’ perceptions of product at-
tributes and their subsequent purchase intention, as well as
how the packaging design interacts with the product type.
The results of three experimental studies demonstrate that
cute packaging design serves as both a positive taste cue and
a negative health cue. Consequently, consumers are more
likely to purchase products with cute packaging designs
when the products are relative vices (e.g., chocolate cookies).
Conversely, consumers are less likely to purchase products

Benedikt Schnurr (benedikt.schnurr@tum.de) is assistant professor at the Chair of Marketing, TUM School of Management, Technical University of Munich,
Arcisstr. 21, 80336 Munich, Germany. This research was supported by a Young Researcher’s Grant (Nachwuchsförderung 2017) from the Leopold-Franzens-
Universität Innsbruck.

JACR, volume 4, number 4. Published online July 26, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/705029

© 2019 the Association for Consumer Research. All rights reserved. 2378-1815/2019/0404-00XX$10.00

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.040 on September 17, 2019 06:02:20 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
000 Too Cute to Be Healthy Schnurr
with cute packaging designs when the products are relative
virtues (e.g., vegetable juice).
T H E O R E T I C A L F R A ME W O R K
Cute Packaging Design
Cuteness is generally defined as being pleasantly attractive
in a delicate way (http://webster-dictionary.org/definition
/Cute). Prior research has predominantly focused on the ef-
fects of kindchenschema cuteness, which regards an object’s
baby-like or infantile appearance (Hildebrandt and Fitzger-
ald 1978). Exposure to kindchenschema cuteness sponta-
neously triggers associations of weakness and vulnerability
(Wang and Mukhopadhyay 2015) and, as a consequence, elic-
its caretaking (Sherman, Haidt, and Coan 2009) and pro-
social behavior (Keating et al. 2003) in adults.
However, as cuteness is a broad concept entailing many
different elements, Nenkov and Scott (2014) proposed a dif-
ferent conceptualization of cuteness, namely, whimsical cute-
ness, which is the focus of the current research. Different
from kindchenschema cuteness, whimsical cuteness is not
associated with vulnerability but with fun and playfulness.
Thus, whimsical cuteness refers to the fun and playfulness
that are associated with inanimate objects, such as con-
sumer products or packaging. Perceptions of whimsical cute-
ness can be evoked by several visual cues such as anthropo-
morphic designs and colorful graphics (Nenkov and Scott
2014) or by using rounded shapes (Cho, Gonzales, and Yoon
2011).
Cute Packaging Design and Product
Attribute Judgment
Consumers perceive visual packaging elements (e.g., color,
shape, size, and visual image) not only in terms of their
functional purpose (e.g., protection) but also in terms of
their symbolic associations (Underwood 2003). Especially
when they are without access to complete product informa-
tion (Deval et al. 2013), consumers tend to use these sym-
bolic associations when forming judgments about product
attributes in which these associations spill over to the prod-
uct. Of particular importance to the current study, existing
research has demonstrated that altering packaging design
elements, such as the shape, color, and imagery, can influ-
ence consumers’ taste and health inferences. Consumers rate
products as healthier when packages are angular rather than
rounded (Fenko et al. 2016), are slim rather than wide (van
Ooijen et al. 2017), are colored red rather than yellow
(Karnal et al. 2016), and use light rather than dark colors
(Mai et al. 2016). Consumers rate products as tastier when
This content downloaded from 130.237.165.040 on September 17, 2019 06:02:20 AM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
packages are angular rather than rounded (Fenko et al.
2016), are colored dark rather than light (Mai et al. 2016),
and display pictures of unprocessed rather than processed
food (Machiels and Karnal 2016).
While these studies have investigated the effects of sin-
gle design elements (e.g., shape angularity and color light-
ness), the goal of the current research is to examine the
effects of packaging cuteness, which can be evoked by multi-
ple design elements. Thus, the goal of the current research
is to identify the specific design elements that drive percep-
tions of cuteness and to derive an overall assessment that
results from a packaging’s cuteness by manipulating differ-
ent design elements.
However, how do perceptions of packaging cuteness in-
fluence consumers’ judgments of specific product attributes?
In a series of studies, Nenkov and Scott (2014) demonstrated
that exposure to whimsically cute products increases con-
sumers’ indulgent consumption. Importantly, the authors
showed that exposure to whimsically cute objects primes
mental representations of fun. Research on mental imagery
suggests that the mental representations that consumers
create when exposed to visual stimuli affect their product
judgments (MacInnis and Price 1987; Petrova and Cialdini
2005; Jiang et al. 2015). Therefore, exposure to cute pack-
aging should lead consumers to generate mental images of
having fun consuming the product, thus increasing their per-
ceptions of hedonic benefits (Voss, Spangenberg, and Groh-
mann 2003). The hedonic value of food products is defined
by how good the food tastes (Connell and Mayor 2013).
Thus, this research proposes that cute packaging design in-
creases consumers’ perceptions of tastiness.
However, consumers are known to hold opposing theo-
ries about products and tend to make naïve judgments about
product attributes (Deval et al. 2013). Thus, consumers may
draw opposing inferences from the very same cue. For ex-
ample, Deng and Srinivasan (2013) found that transparent
packages both increase consumption, as they enhance food
salience, and decrease consumption, as they facilitate con-
sumption monitoring. Specifically, consumers categorize ob-
jects into those that are fun and exciting (tasty) and those
that are wholesome (healthy, nourishing, and good for you;
Raghunathan, Naylor, and Hoyer 2006). Consequently, this
research proposes that while cute packaging design serves
as a positive taste cue, it also serves as a negative health
cue. In other words, it is expected that cute packaging design
leads to positive inferences about a product’s tastiness and to
negative inferences about a product’s healthiness. Stating
this hypothesis formally:

H1: Cute packaging design increases (decreases) con-
sumers’ perceptions of product tastiness (healthiness).
In the following, three studies are reported using differ-
ent products and a variety of cuteness manipulations. The
studies investigate (1) the effect of cute packaging design on
perceptions of tastiness and healthiness, (2) the downstream
effect on consumer purchase intention, and (3) how the ef-
fect of cute packaging design on consumer purchase inten-
tion depends on the product type.
ST UDY 1
Study 1 tested the basic hypothesis that cute packaging
design would positively influence participants’ ratings of the
product’s tastiness and negatively influence participants’
ratings of the product’s healthiness. Participants were ex-
posed to a nut snack that was packaged with either a cute or
a neutral design. Nut snacks were chosen as the focal prod-
uct because they have both healthy and unhealthy attri-
butes (Corleone 2013).
Method
A total of 100 US consumers (Amazon Mechanical Turk
[MTurk], M age 5 35, 44% female) were randomly assigned
to either the cute or the neutral packaging condition. The
participants were told that the study was about people’s
food preferences.
Cuteness Manipulation. Cuteness was manipulated by al-
tering the packaging’s graphical features (see fig. 1), follow-
ing Nenkov and Scott (2014; study 3). In a pretest, 60 dif-
ferent US consumers (MTurk, Mage 5 34, 62% female) were
randomly assigned to either the cute or the neutral packag-
ing. Based on the procedure that was suggested by Nenkov
and Scott (2014), participants indicated the extent to which
they perceived the packaging as cute (cute, adorable, and
endearing; a 5 :96), whimsically cute (whimsical, playful,
and fun; a 5 :93), and kindchenschema cute (vulnerable,
naive, and caretaking; a 5 :73). Additionally, participants
rated the packaging’s visual appeal (attractive and beau-
tiful; r 5 :81) and indicated their health regulatory focus
based on the scales that were provided by Gomez, Borges,
and Pechmann (2013), assessing participants’ health pro-
motion focus (a 5 :91) and prevention focus (a 5 :81). All
of these items were measured using a 7-point scale from
1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). Furthermore, following Kar-
nal et al. (2016), participants rated the packaging’s heaviness
This content downloaded from 130.237.165.040 on September 17, 2019 06:02:20 AM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
Volume 4 Number 4 2019 000
Figure 1. Cute (left) vs. neutral (right) packaging (study 1).
(1 5 light to 7 5 heavy) and arousal (1 5 calming to 7 5
arousing).
As intended, compared to the neutral packaging, partic-
ipants rated the cute packaging as cuter and whimsically
cuter but not different in terms of kindchenschema cute-
ness (see table 1 for the detailed results of all pretests). The
packages did not differ in their visual appeal and heaviness,
and they did not affect participants’ health regulatory fo-
cus. However, participants rated the cute packaging as more
arousing than the neutral packaging. Arousal will thus be in-
cluded as a covariate in the main study.
Measures. After exposure to the packaging, the participants
first indicated their intention to purchase the product on a
scale from 1 (very unlikely) to 7 (very likely). They then rated
the nut snack’s tastiness and healthiness. To assess the prod-
uct’s perceived tastiness, participants rated the product on
the following three items: “How tasty do you think this prod-
uct is?” (1 5 not at all tasty to 7 5 very tasty), “How deli-
cious do you think this product is?” (1 5 not delicious at
all to 7 5 very delicious), and “How good do you think this
product tastes?” (1 5 bad to 7 5 good) (a 5 :95). To assess
the product’s perceived healthiness, participants rated the
product on the following three items: “How healthy do you
think this product is?” (1 5 not at all healthy to 7 5 very
healthy), “How important would this product be as part
of a healthy diet?” (1 5 not important at all to 7 5 very im-
portant), “How good do you think this product is for your
health?” (1 5 bad for my health to 7 5 good for my health;
 Table 1. Stimuli Pretests (Studies 1–3)

Whimsical Kindchenschema Visual Health Health

Cuteness cuteness cuteness appeal Heaviness Arousal promotion focus prevention focus

Study 1:
Cute 4.69 5.15 2.53 4.01 1.94 3.24 5.02 4.45
Neutral 2.39 2.28 2.38 3.61 1.69 1.92 5.25 4.59
t(1, 58) 5 4.83, t(1, 58) 5 6.98, t(1, 58) 5 .459, t(1, 58) 5 .85, t(1, 58) 5 .94, t(1, 58) 5 3.22, t(1, 58) 5 2.67, t(1, 58) 5 2.35,
p < .001 p < .001 p 5 .65 p 5 .39 p 5 .35 p < .01 p 5 .51 p 5 .73
Study 2:
Cute 5.14 5.09 3.49 4.37 3.19 4.78 5.19 4.79
Neutral 3.71 3.50 3.21 4.26 3.39 4.37 5.15 4.97
F(1, 130) 5 26.15, F(1, 130) 5 31.43, F(1, 130) 5 .95, F(1, 130) 5 .15, F(1, 130) 5 .41, F(1, 130) 5 1.73, F(1, 130) 5 .06, F(1, 130) 5 .001,
p < .001 p < .001 p 5 .33 p 5 .69 p 5 .52 p 5 .19 p 5 .81 p 5 .97
Study 3:
Cute 4.93 4.95 3.08 3.94 3.11 3.71 5.09 4.80
Neutral 2.85 2.36 2.67 3.59 2.83 2.50 4.76 4.63
t(68) 5 5.11, t(68) 5 7.05, t(68) 5 1.04, t(68) 5 .98, t(68) 5 .69, t(68) 5 2.84, t(68) 5 1.03, t(68) 5 .50,
p < .001 p < .001 p 5 .30 p 5 .33 p 5 .49 p < .01 p 5 .30 p 5 .62

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.040 on September 17, 2019 06:02:20 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).

a 5 :89). The order of all six items was randomized. Next,
to assess participants’ consumption imagery, participants
indicated how much fun it would be to eat the nut snack
(1 5 no fun at all to 7 5 a lot of fun). Finally, participants
assessed the packaging’s arousal using the same item as in
the pretest.
Results
ANCOVAs with arousal as the covariate on the perceived
tastiness, healthiness, consumption fun, and purchase in-
tention revealed that participants rated the nut snack as
tastier in the cute packaging condition than in the neu-
tral packaging condition (M cute 5 5:53 vs. M neutral 5 4:83;
F(1; 97) 5 4:83, p < :05) and as less healthy in the cute
packaging condition than in the neutral packaging con-
dition (Mcute 5 4:50 vs. Mneutral 5 5:22; F(1; 97) 5 6:76,
p < :05). These results support hypothesis 1. Furthermore,
participants rated the nut snack with the cute packaging
as more fun to consume than the nut snack with the neu-
tral packaging (M cute 5 4:61 vs. Mneutral 5 3:64; F(1; 97) 5
9:29, p < :01). The effect of the packaging design on purchase
intention was not significant (Mcute 5 4:43 vs. Mneutral 5
4:71; F < 1).
A mediation analysis (Hayes 2013; model 4, n 5 5; 000)
with tastiness and healthiness as parallel mediators and
arousal as the covariate produced a positive indirect effect of
the packaging design on purchase intention through tasti-
ness (b 5 :33; standard error (SE) 5 :17; 95% confidence in-
terval (CI95%) 5 .02, .67) and a negative indirect effect of the
packaging design on purchase intention through healthiness
(b 5 2:22; SE 5 :11; CI95% 5 2:47, 2.04). The direct effect
of the packaging design on purchase intention was nonsignif-
icant (b 5 2:39, SE 5 :36, CI95% 5 2 1:09, .32). The pack-
aging design positively predicted tastiness (b 5 :69; SE 5
:32, p < :05) and negatively predicted healthiness (b 5 2:72
SE 5 :28, p < :05), with both tastiness (b 5 :47; SE 5 :11,
p < :001) and healthiness (b 5 :36; SE 5:12, p < :05) posi-
tively predicting purchase intention.
A mediation analysis (Hayes 2013; model 6, n 5 5; 000)
with consumption fun and tastiness as serial mediators and
arousal as the covariate produced a significant positive in-
direct effect of cuteness on purchase intention through con-
sumption fun and tastiness (b 5 :15; SE 5 :09; CI95% 5:01,
.35). A mediation analysis with consumption fun and tasti-
ness as serial mediators produced a significant negative in-
direct effect of cuteness on purchase intention through con-
sumption fun and healthiness (b 5 2:13; SE 5 :09; CI95% 5
2:34, 2.01).
This content downloaded from 130.237.165.040 on September 17, 2019 06:02:20 AM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
Volume 4 Number 4 2019 000
Discussion
Supporting the basic hypothesis, the cute packaging led to
more favorable perceptions of the nut snack’s tastiness and
to less favorable perceptions of the nut snack’s healthiness.
Further, the results from the parallel mediation analysis show
that the positive effect of the cute packaging design on the
perceived tastiness and the negative effect of the cute pack-
aging design on the perceived healthiness tend to annul each
other when predicting purchase intention. The results from
the serial mediation analyses demonstrate that the positive
taste effect and the negative health effect are driven by the
fun that consumers imagined that they would experience
while consuming the product. To further increase the confi-
dence in consumption fun being the main mechanism un-
derlying the positive (negative) taste (health) effect of the
packaging cuteness, we ran several additional mediation mod-
els including arousal as a parallel and serial mediator (see
appendix, available online). The analyses demonstrate that
our results are not driven by the cute packaging generating
higher arousal.
ST U DY 2
The product stimulus that was used in study 1 (nut snack)
may be regarded as both relatively healthy and unhealthy.
However, some products are healthy by nature (e.g., veg-
etables), while others are rather unhealthy by nature (e.g.,
chocolate cookies). Thus, one factor that is likely to influ-
ence the effect of the cute packaging design on consumer
purchase intention is the product type. Specifically, this re-
search suggests that cute packaging design affects consum-
ers’ purchase intention differently for vice and virtue prod-
ucts (Wertenbroch 1998). Vice products (also referred to
as “wants”) are unhealthy by nature and provide instant grat-
ification and hedonic benefits (such as the immediate plea-
sure derived from eating a chocolate cookie). Virtue products
(also referred to as “shoulds”) are healthy by nature and
provide long-term benefits. As such, when consumers make
a deliberate food choice in favor of a vice product (e.g., pizza)
for dinner, they do so mainly because of the product’s great
taste and the derived pleasure, irrespective of the meal’s po-
tentially negative health effects (Milkman, Rogers, and Bazer-
man 2008). However, when choosing a virtue product (e.g.,
salad) for dinner, they do so mainly because of the long-term
health benefits that the meal provides. Consequently, it
seems plausible that consumers’ associated consumption goal
of choosing between a vice product and a virtue product
affects what kind of inferences that consumers draw from
cute packaging designs.
000 Too Cute to Be Healthy Schnurr
Existing research has demonstrated that packaging cues
signaling product healthiness affect consumer responses dif-
ferently for vice and virtue products. Raghunathan et al.
(2006) showed that nutrition negatively influences percep-
tions of tastiness for vice products. Van Doorn and Verhoef
(2011) found that organic claims lead to negative quality per-
ceptions of vice products and to positive quality perceptions
of virtue products. While these studies have shown different
effects for positive health cues (nutrition labels and organic
claims), cute packaging design is supposed to positively affect
perceived tastiness and negatively affect perceived healthi-
ness. Thus, cute packaging design should positively influence
the perceived tastiness for vice products and negatively influ-
ence the perceived healthiness for virtue products.
As vice products (e.g., chocolate cookies, beer, and cof-
fee) are consumed especially for their enjoyment, consum-
ers focus on any cue that informs them about the product’s
tastiness. Therefore, for vice products, consumers should in-
terpret cute packaging designs as positive signals for tasti-
ness, thus increasing their purchase intention for vice prod-
ucts with cute packaging designs. As vice products are already
unhealthy by nature, cute packaging design as a negative
health cue should not play a major role for consumers in
purchasing vice products. In contrast, as virtue products (e.g.,
natural yogurt, green tea, and fruit juice) are consumed espe-
cially because these products are healthy and provide benefi-
cial long-term effects, consumers focus on any cue that in-
forms them about the product’s healthiness. Therefore, for
virtue products, consumers should interpret cute packaging
designs as negative signals of healthiness, thus leading to
lower purchase intentions of virtue products with cute pack-
aging designs. In other words, the healthiness that is asso-
ciated with virtue products would become partly spoiled by
a cute packaging design, which serves as a positive taste cue
and a negative health cue. Cute packaging design as a posi-
tive taste cue should not play a major role for consumers in
purchasing virtue products. Thus, we state the following:
H2a: For vice (virtue) products, cute packaging de-
sign increases (decreases) purchase intention.
H2b: The positive (negative) effect of cute packaging
design on purchase intention for vice (virtue) prod-
ucts is mediated by perceptions of product tastiness
(healthiness).
To test these predictions, participants were presented with a
cute (vs. neutral) packaging of a relative vice (virtue) product.
This content downloaded from 130.237.165.040 on September 17, 2019 06:02:20 AM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
Method
A total of 186 US consumers (MTurk, M age 5 25, 43% fe-
male) were randomly assigned to one of four conditions
in a 2 (packaging design: cute vs. neutral)  2 (product type:
vice vs. virtue) between-subjects design.
Product Type Manipulation. A total of 12 different food
products, which were to be classified as either vice products
(e.g., chocolate cookies, beer, and vanilla ice cream) or vir-
tue products (e.g., vegetable juice, natural yogurt, and bot-
tled water), were pretested. Fifty US consumers (MTurk,
M age 5 37, 48% female) rated all 12 products in a random-
ized order from 1 (complete virtue) to 7 (complete vice), fol-
lowing the introductory explanation that “virtue products
tend to be healthier and provide long-term benefits, while
vice products tend to offer instant gratification, be unhealth-
ier, or provide short-term benefits” (Olsen, Slotegraaf, and
Chandukala 2014). For the main study, we selected choc-
olate cookies as the vice product (M 5 5:70) and vegeta-
ble juice as the virtue product (M 5 2:30; t(49) 5 16:47,
p < :001).
Cuteness Manipulation. In this study, the cuteness of the
packaging was manipulated using anthropomorphic char-
acters, in accordance with Nenkov and Scott (2014; studies 1,
2, and 4). Thus, for the vice product (chocolate cookies), the
packaging featured a picture of a real chocolate cookie in
the neutral condition and a picture of a cartoon-like smiling
cookie in the cute condition. For the virtue product (vegeta-
ble juice), the packaging featured a picture of a real apple in
the neutral condition and a picture of a cartoon-like smiling
apple in the cute condition (see fig. 2). In a pretest, 133 US
consumers (MTurk, Mage 5 38, 45% female) were randomly
exposed to one of the four packages. Using the same scales
as in the previous study, participants rated the packaging’s
cuteness (a 5 :91), whimsical cuteness (a 5 :91), kindchen-
schema cuteness (a 5 :83), visual appeal (r 5:72), heaviness,
and arousal and indicated their health promotion (a 5 :82)
and prevention focus (a 5 :72).
Separate 2  2 ANOVAs produced only significant main
effects of the packaging design on perceptions of cuteness
and whimsical cuteness (see table 1). As intended, compared
to the neutral packages, the cute packages were rated as cuter
and whimsically cuter. All other main and interaction effects
were not significant (all p > :13). This result shows that the
packages did not differ in their perceived kindchenschema
cuteness, visual appeal, heaviness, and arousal and did not
influence participants’ health regulatory focus. Further, the

Figure 2. Vice (top) and virtue (bottom) products with cute (left) vs.
neutral (right) packaging (study 2).
product type did not affect participants’ ratings of the pack-
ages or their health regulatory focus.
Measures. After being exposed to the product packaging,
participants first indicated their purchase intention. The
participants then indicated their perceptions of the prod-
uct’s tastiness (a 5 :97) and healthiness (a 5 :95) on the
same scales as in study 1 in a randomized order.
Results
Tastiness. A 2  2 ANOVA with the packaging design
and product type as independent variables on the perceived
tastiness revealed a nonsignificant main effect of the pack-
aging design (F < 1). The main effect of the product type
was significant (F(1; 182) 5 43:79, p < :001; M vice 5 5:53
vs. M virtue 5 4:13). This main effect was qualified by a sig-
nificant interaction between the packaging design and prod-
uct type (F(1; 182) 5 5:23, p < :05). Planned contrasts re-
vealed that participants rated the vice product with the cute
packaging as tastier than the vice product with the neu-
tral packaging (Mcute 5 5:84 vs. M neutral 5 5:23; F(1; 182) 5
4:54, p < :05). For the virtue product, the packaging design
This content downloaded from 130.237.165.040 on September 17, 2019 06:02:20 AM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
Volume 4 Number 4 2019 000
had no effect on the perceived tastiness (M cute 5 3:94 vs.
M neutral 5 4:31; F(1; 182) 5 1:34, p 5 :25).
Healthiness. A 2  2 ANOVA on the perceived healthi-
ness produced a nonsignificant main effect of the packag-
ing design (F < 1). The main effect of the product type was
significant (F(1; 182) 5 298:26, p < :001; Mvice 5 2:09 vs.
M virtue 5 5:25). The interaction between the packaging de-
sign and product type was significant (F(1; 182) 5 6:91,
p < :01). According to the planned contrasts, the packaging
design did not affect participants’ ratings of healthiness of the
vice product (M cute 5 2:25 vs. M neutral 5 1:95; F(1; 182) 5
1:51, p 5 :22). Participants rated the virtue product with
the cute packaging design as less healthy than the virtue
product with the neutral packaging design (Mcute 5 4:92 vs.
M neutral 5 5:58; F(1; 182) 5 5:92, p < :05).
Purchase Intention. A 2  2 ANOVA on purchase inten-
tion produced a nonsignificant main effect of the packaging
design (F < 1) and a significant main effect of the product
type (Mvice 5 4:54 vs. Mvirtue 5 3:63; F(1; 182) 5 11:50,
p < :01). Most importantly, the interaction between the pack-
aging design and product type was significant (F(1; 182) 5
10:08, p < :01; see fig. 3). The planned contrasts showed
that participants indicated higher purchase intention for
the vice product when the packaging was cute rather than
when the packaging was neutral, thus supporting hypothe-
sis 2a (M cute 5 4:94 vs. M neutral 5 4:14; F(1; 182) 5 4:96,
p < :05). Participants indicated lower purchase intention for
Figure 3. Purchase intention as a function of the packaging design
and product type (study 2).
000 Too Cute to Be Healthy Schnurr
the virtue product when the packaging was cute rather
than when the packaging was neutral (M cute 5 3:17 vs.
Mneutral 5 4:08; F(1; 182) 5 5:13, p < :05).
Moderated Mediation Analysis. The study predicts a pos-
itive effect of cute packaging design on purchase intention
through the perceived of tastiness of the vice product and
a negative effect of cute packaging design on purchase in-
tention through the perceived healthiness of the virtue prod-
uct. A moderated mediation analysis (Hayes 2013; model 7,
n 5 5; 000) was conducted that included the packaging de-
sign as the independent variable (0 5 neutral, 1 5 cute),
purchase intention as the dependent variable, the product
type as the moderator (0 5 virtue, 1 5 vice), and tastiness
and healthiness as parallel mediators. The analysis produced
significant indices of moderated mediation for both tasti-
ness (b 5 :70; SE 5 :35; CI95% 5 :07, 1.43) and healthiness
(b 5 :17; SE 5 :09; CI95% 5 :03, .41). Specifically, for the
vice product, the model produced a significant positive in-
direct effect of the packaging design on purchase intention
through tastiness (b 5 :44; SE 5 :17; CI95% 5:14, .79) and
a nonsignificant indirect effect of the packaging design on
the purchase intention through healthiness (b 5 :05; SE 5
:05; CI95% 5 2:01, .18). For the virtue product, the model
produced a nonsignificant indirect effect of the packaging
design on purchase intention through tastiness (b 5 2:26;
SE 5 :29; CI95% 5 2:86, .28) and a significant negative in-
direct effect of the packaging design on purchase intention
through healthiness (b 5 2:12; SE 5 :07; CI95% 5 2 :29,
2.02). Together, these results support hypothesis 2b.
Discussion
Study 2 extends our understanding of the effects of cute
packaging designs by showing that the product attributes
that consumers infer from a cute packaging design interact
with the product type when predicting purchase intention.
Consistent with expectations, cute packaging design increased
purchase intentions for the vice product but decreased pur-
chase intentions for the virtue product. Importantly, while
the former positive effect was mediated by the perceived
tastiness, the latter negative effect was mediated by the per-
ceived healthiness. These results demonstrate that the pos-
itive taste effect of cute packaging design only holds for
products that consumers choose primarily for their taste.
Likewise, the negative health effect leads to negative effects
on consumer purchase intention for products that consum-
ers choose primarily for their health benefits.
This content downloaded from 130.237.165.040 on September 17, 2019 06:02:20 AM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
ST U DY 3
Study 3 investigates the moderating effect of the prod-
uct type further by manipulating the product type (vice vs.
virtue) through verbal advertising messages. Specifically, so
far, the studies have examined the effects of cute packaging
design on product attribute judgments without considering
verbal product information. However, consumers are typi-
cally not exposed to visual packaging cues in isolation, but
rather in a context (such as advertising) with additional ver-
bal product information. As such, marketers use verbal prod-
uct information to highlight specific taste benefits (e.g.,
Sunkist: “Taste the Joy”), which positions the product as
a relative vice, or health benefits (e.g., Naked Juice: “No sugar
added”), which positions the product as a relative virtue.
Thus, from a managerial standpoint, it seems critical to in-
vestigate the possible interaction effects between the visual
packaging design of a product and the verbal product in-
formation that is presented. Accordingly, in study 3, partic-
ipants were exposed to advertisements featuring cute (vs.
neutral) packaging of cereals that promotes the cereals’ taste
(health) benefits.
Method
A total of 173 students from a European University (M age 5
23, 66% female) were randomly assigned to one of four con-
ditions in a 2 (packaging design: cute vs. neutral)  2 (prod-
uct type: vice vs. virtue) between-subjects design.
Cuteness Manipulation. In this study, cuteness was ma-
nipulated by displaying colorful dots (vs. no dots) on the ce-
reals’ packaging (see fig. 4), similar to study 1. In a pretest,
70 different students (Mage 5 22, 57% female) were ran-
domly assigned to either the cute or the neutral packaging.
Using the same scales as in the previous studies, participants
rated the packaging’s cuteness (a 5 :94), whimsical cuteness
(a 5 :94), kindchenschema cuteness (a 5 :84), visual appeal
(r 5 :65), heaviness, and arousal and indicated their health
promotion (a 5 :92) and prevention focus (a 5 :71). Com-
pared to the neutral packaging, participants perceived the
cute packaging as cuter and whimsically cuter (see table 1).
The packages did not differ in their visual appeal and heavi-
ness and did not affect participants’ health regulatory focus.
However, as participants rated the cute packaging as more
arousing than the neutral packaging, arousal will be included
as a covariate in the main study.
Product Type Manipulation. In the vice product condition,
the advertisement contained product descriptions focusing
 Volume 4 Number 4 2019 000

Figure 4. Vice (top) and virtue (bottom) product with cute (left) vs. neutral (right) packaging (study 3).

on the cereals’ tastiness, while in the virtue condition, the Results

advertisement contained product descriptions focusing on
the cereals’ healthiness (see fig. 4).
In a pretest, 145 students (M age 5 23, 65% female) were
randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 (pack-
aging design: cute vs. neutral)  2 (product type: vice vs.
virtue) between-subjects design and rated the product type
on the same scale as in study 2. A 2  2 ANOVA produced
only a significant main effect for the advertising mes-
sage (F(1; 141) 5 165:15, p < :001; Mtaste emp 5 5:36 vs.
Mhealth emp 5 3:02). Thus, participants perceived the cereals
to be a relative vice (vs. virtue) when the advertisement com-
municated the cereals’ tastiness (vs. healthiness). The main
effect of the packaging and the interaction effect were not
significant (all F < 1). Thus, the manipulation of the product
type was successful and was not affected by the manipula-
tion of the packaging design.
Measures. After being exposed to the advertisement, par-
ticipants first indicated their purchase intention and then
indicated their perceptions of the product’s tastiness (a 5
:87) and healthiness (a 5 :81) in a randomized order. Fur-
ther, participants rated the packaging’s arousal.
Tastiness. A 2  2 ANCOVA with arousal as the covariate
on perceptions of tastiness revealed a nonsignificant main
effect of the packaging design (p 5 :39) and a significant
main effect of the product type (F(1; 168) 5 9:49, p < :01;
M vice 5 4:66 vs. Mvirtue 5 4:19). The interaction between the
packaging design and product type was significant (F(1; 168) 5
6:01, p < :05). Planned contrasts revealed that participants
rated the vice product with the cute packaging as tastier
than the vice product with the neutral packaging (Mcute 5
4:91 vs. Mneutral 5 4:41; F(1; 168) 5 5:60, p < :05). For the
virtue product, no differences emerged (M cute 5 4:08 vs.
M neutral 5 4:31; F(1; 168) 5 1:09, p 5 :29).
Healthiness. A 2  2 ANCOVA on the perceived health-
iness produced a nonsignificant main effect of the pack-
aging design (p 5 :20) and a significant main effect of the
product type (F(1; 168) 5 11:72, p < :01; M vice 5 3:48
vs. M virtue 5 4:01). Importantly, the interaction between
the packaging design and the product type was significant
(F(1; 168) 5 5:08, p < :05). According to the planned con-
trasts, the packaging design had no effect on participants’
ratings of the product’s healthiness for the vice product

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.040 on September 17, 2019 06:02:20 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
000 Too Cute to Be Healthy Schnurr
(Mcute 5 3:57 vs. Mneutral 5 3:39; F(1; 168) 5 :42, p 5:52).
Participants rated the virtue product with the cute pack-
aging design as less healthy than the virtue product with
the neutral packaging design (M cute 5 3:67 vs. M neutral 5
4:35; F(1; 168) 5 5:86, p < :05).
Purchase Intention. A 2  2 ANCOVA on purchase inten-
tion produced a nonsignificant main effect of the packag-
ing design ( p 5 :92), a significant main effect of the prod-
uct type (Mvice 5 4:59 vs. M virtue 5 4:24; F(1; 168) 5 5:33,
p < :05), and a significant interaction effect (F(1; 168) 5
18:15, p < :001; see fig. 5). Planned contrasts showed that
participants indicated higher purchase intentions for the
vice product when the packaging was cute rather than when
the packaging was neutral (Mcute 5 4:92 vs. M neutral 5 4:25;
F(1; 168) 5 9:52, p < :01). Participants indicated lower pur-
chase intentions for the virtue product when the packag-
ing was cute rather than when the packaging was neutral
(Mcute 5 3:92 vs. M neutral 5 4:55; F(1; 168) 5 7:81, p < :01).
These results provide further support for hypothesis 2a.
Moderated Mediation Analysis. A moderated mediation
analysis (Hayes 2013; model 7, n 5 5; 000) that was similar
to study 2 produced significant indices of moderated me-
diation for both tastiness (b 5 :33; SE 5 :16; CI95% 5 :06,
.66) and healthiness (b 5 :17; SE 5 :11; CI95% 5 :01, .44).
For the vice product, the analysis produced a significant pos-
Figure 5. Purchase intention as a function of the packaging design
and product type (study 3).
This content downloaded from 130.237.165.040 on September 17, 2019 06:02:20 AM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
itive indirect effect of the packaging design on purchase in-
tention through tastiness (b 5 :23; SE 5 :11; CI95% 5 :03,
.47) and a nonsignificant indirect effect of the packaging
design on purchase intention through healthiness (b 5 :03;
SE 5 :06; CI95% 5 2:07, .19). For the virtue product, the
analysis produced a nonsignificant indirect effect of the
packaging design on purchase intention through tastiness
(b 5 2:10; SE 5 :11; CI95% 5 2:33, .09) and a significant
negative indirect effect of the packaging design on purchase
intention through healthiness (b 5 2:13; SE 5 :08; CI95% 5
2:31, 2.02). These results provide further support for hy-
pothesis 2b.
Discussion
Study 3 replicates the findings from study 2 by manipu-
lating the product type via verbal advertising messages. For
the vice product, cute packaging design increased purchase
intentions through the perceived tastiness. For the virtue
product, the cute packaging design decreased purchase inten-
tions through the perceived healthiness.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The current research demonstrates that cute packaging de-
sign serves as an extrinsic cue that leads consumers to per-
ceive products as tastier but less healthy. While Nenkov and
Scott (2014) demonstrated that exposure to whimsically
cute objects increases consumers’ indulgent behavior (e.g.,
eating ice cream and watching lowbrow movies), the cur-
rent research demonstrates that cute packaging designs in-
fluence consumers’ judgments of specific product attributes:
tastiness and healthiness. Relatedly, while prior research
has shown that consumers draw inferences about products’
tastiness and healthiness from packaging design elements
such as the color brightness (Mai et al. 2016), color hue (Kar-
nal et al. 2016), shape angularity (Fenko et al. 2016; Velasco
et al. 2014), and product visuals (Machiels and Karnal 2016),
the current study extends this line of research to the con-
cept of cute packaging designs.
The results from study 1 suggest consumption imagery
as the underlying process. Specifically, being exposed to food
packaging with a cute design leads consumers to believe that
the product is actually fun to consume. Previous studies have
shown that visual stimuli can activate specific mental asso-
ciations (MacInnis and Price 1987; Petrova and Cialdini 2005;
Jiang et al. 2015). The current study demonstrates that imag-
ined consumption fun results in inferences about food tast-
iness and healthiness.

Furthermore, this research demonstrates that the effect
of cute packaging design on consumer purchase intention
depends on the product type. Prior research has demonstrated
that the effects of product and package design elements on
consumer behavior greatly vary depending on contextual
factors, such as verbal product attribute information (Hoegg
and Alba 2011; Noseworthy and Trudel 2011), the brand
(Wansink 1996), the product category (Sevilla and Kahn
2014), or the intrinsic characteristics of packaged products
(Scott et al. 2008; Deng and Srinivasan 2013). Studies 2 and
3 demonstrate that cute packaging designs increase pur-
chase intentions for relative vices but decreases purchase in-
tentions for relative virtues.
In turn, the findings of this research provide actionable
managerial implications that can be adapted according to a
company’s current profile and product assortment. For prod-
ucts that may be regarded as both rather healthy and rather
unhealthy, such as nut snacks, the findings suggest that mar-
keters should make use of cute packaging designs if their
goal is to promote the product’s tastiness. If their goal is to
promote the product’s healthiness, marketers should refrain
from using cute packaging designs. For companies already
making use of cute packaging designs, emphasizing taste ben-
efits in marketing communication, such as advertising, would
be a preferable strategy. For companies not making use of
cute packaging designs, emphasizing health benefits would
be the preferable strategy.
Whether or not to make use of cute packaging designs
also depends on the product type. As vice products are pre-
dominantly consumed for the immediate pleasure that they
provide, consumers are looking for cues that signal tasti-
ness with less regard for how unhealthy the product might
be. Because vice products are intrinsically unhealthy, the
cute packaging design as a negative health cue has no effect
on consumer purchase intention. Thus, making use of cute
packaging design is the preferable strategy for communicat-
ing the tastiness of vice products. Virtue products, on the
other hand, are consumed for the health benefits that they
provide. Thus, consumers are looking for cues that signal
healthiness. Consequently, cute packaging design as a neg-
ative health cue has a negative effect on consumer purchase
intention, and using rather simple and clean packaging de-
signs is the preferable strategy for virtue products.
The current study also provides implications for public pol-
icy makers. Leading consumers to make healthier food choices
is one major strategy to fight worldwide obesity (www.who
.int). Studies 2 and 3 demonstrate that cute packaging de-
This content downloaded from 130.237.165.040 on September 17, 2019 06:02:20 AM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
Volume 4 Number 4 2019 000
signs increase purchase intention for vice (unhealthy) prod-
ucts and decreases purchase intention for virtue (healthy)
products. These findings thus resonate with Crolic et al.’s
(2019) work, which suggests that aesthetics may result in
negative consequences for consumer well-being. In public
places (e.g., schools and colleges), policy makers can encour-
age consumers to choose healthy food products by limiting
the availability of products featuring cute packaging designs.
By choosing brands that use rather plain and simple pack-
aging designs, consumers are more likely to purchase virtue
products and less likely to purchase vice products, thus mak-
ing healthier food choices.
On a larger scale, an option would be to make consumers
engage in counterfactual thinking, which encourages con-
sumers to question the influence that packaging cues might
have on their food perceptions and choices (Chandon 2013).
As packaging cuteness decreases consumers’ perceived health-
iness of virtue products, public campaigns may focus on
the intrinsic health benefits of virtue products while, at the
same time, encouraging consumers to think about the role
of packaging.
Despite these contributions to theory and practice, there
remain some limitations of this work that suggest room for
future research. First, this study exclusively investigated the
effects of cute packaging designs for food products. Future
studies should broaden the scope of this research by investi-
gating different industries and different cuteness elements.
For example, another product category where cute packag-
ing design becomes increasingly more prominent is cosmet-
ics (e.g., Oliver Bonas, Treaclemoon, Lush, and Life NK). It
would certainly be worthwhile to investigate whether the
effect of cuteness positively (negatively) influencing consum-
ers’ perceptions of hedonic (functional) product benefits holds
for other product categories. In the fashion industry, for ex-
ample, the luxury brand Hugo Boss created a limited holiday
collection featuring whimsical cartoon pictures. Due to the
high hedonic potential that is associated with luxury brands
(Hagtvedt and Patrick 2009), one might suspect that display-
ing such cute designs would result in favorable consumer
responses for luxury brands. With respect to nonprofit or-
ganizations, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) uses
a rather cute brand logo compared to other similar organi-
zations, such as the Wildlife Conservation Society. It would
certainly be interesting to investigate whether brand logo
cuteness affects consumers’ donation behavior.
Second, we argued that imagined consumption fun would
underlie the positive (negative) taste (health) effect of cute
000 Too Cute to Be Healthy Schnurr
packaging designs. Future researchers should look deeper
into potential alternative explanations. Specifically, the cute
packaging designs of studies 1 and 3 generated higher arousal
compared to the neutral packaging designs due to the use
of color. Although the results of study 1 support our theo-
rizing, more research is necessary to investigate the role of
arousal in consumers’ responses to cute stimuli. Relatedly,
we proposed that, on the one hand, the mental image of
fun, which is triggered by exposure to the cute packaging de-
sign, would lead consumers to perceive the product as tast-
ier. On the other hand, as consumers are known to draw
opposing inferences from the very same cue (Deval et al.
2013), we proposed that the mental image of fun would lead
consumers to perceive the product as less healthy. Future
studies should investigate the role of learned associations.
Packages of rather unhealthy products, such as candy or choc-
olate, mostly display cute elements, while packages of rather
healthy products, such as organic tea or frozen broccoli, very
seldomly display cute elements. It might be that consumers
automatically associate cute packages with unhealthy prod-
ucts due to repeated exposure to these products.
Third, this article investigated the moderating effect of
the product type, neglecting possible moderators on the in-
dividual level, such as design responsiveness (Bloch, Brunel,
and Arnold 2003) or health consciousness (Prasad, Strijnev,
and Zhang 2008). Jiang, Su, and Zhu (2019) show that con-
sumers with more financial resources tend to prefer angular
product shapes over circular product shapes. As perceptions
of cuteness are evoked by circular shapes, future research may
investigate whether poorer consumers are more likely to
choose cute packaging design than richer consumers. Simi-
larly, this research is limited in that it focuses on consum-
ers’ perceived tastiness without actually tasting the product.
Although of high managerial relevance, it would be inter-
esting to investigate whether cute packaging design affects
consumers’ actual taste perceptions. Relatedly, the current
research assesses participants’ purchase likelihood. Future re-
searchers should investigate the effect of cute packaging de-
sign on actual purchase behavior in a field setting.
Finally, the findings of studies 2 and 3 imply that cute
packaging leads consumers to make less healthy food choices
by increasing purchase intentions for unhealthy (vice) prod-
ucts and decreasing purchase intentions for healthy (virtue)
products. To gain deeper insights for public policy makers,
future research should examine the possible strategies that
might attenuate or even reverse these effects. For example,
Wang, Mukhopadhyay, and Patrick (2017) demonstrated
This content downloaded from 130.237.165.040 on September 17, 2019 06:02:20 AM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
that kindchenschema cute appeal enhances prosocial and sus-
tainable behaviors among consumers with a high approach
motivational orientation. As many brands use cute packag-
ing designs, it would certainly be interesting to examine the
conditions under which whimsically cute appeals may lead
consumers to make healthier food choices.
R EF E REN C E S
Bloch, Peter H., Frédéric F. Brunel, and Todd J. Arnold (2003), “Individual
Differences in the Centrality of Visual Product Aesthetics: Concept
and Measurement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (4), 551–65.
Chandon, Pierre (2013), “How Package Design and Packaged-Based Mar-
keting Claims Lead to Overeating,” Applied Economic Perspectives and
Policy, 35 (1), 7–31.
Cho, Sookyung, R. Gonzales, and Carolyn Yoon (2011), “Cross-Cultural
Difference in the Preference of Cute Products: Asymmetric Dominance
Effect with Product Design,” Proceedings of IASDR, the 4th World Con-
ference on Design Research, Delft, Netherlands.
Connell, Paul M., and Lauren F. Mayor (2013), “Activating Health Goals
Reduces (Increases) Hedonic Evaluation of Food Brands for People
Who Harbor Highly Positive (Negative) Affect toward Them,” Appetite,
65, 159–64.
Corleone, Jill (2013), “Nutritional Value of Dried Fruits and Nuts,” http://
www.livestrong.com/article/285078-nutritional-value-of-dried-fruits
-nuts/ (accessed June 22, 2017).
Crolic, Cammy, Yanmei Zheng, JoAndrea Hoegg, and Joseph W. Alba
(2019), “The Influence of Product Aesthetics on Consumer Inference
Making,” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 4 (4), in this
issue.
Dahl, Darren W., Rong Huang, Shenyu Li, and Qiong Zhou (2019), “The
Effect of Packaging Perceptual Cues on Consumer Disposal Behavior
of Partially Consumed Products,” Journal of the Association for Consumer
Research, 4 (4), in this issue.
Deng, Xiaoyan, and Barbara E. Kahn (2009), “Is Your Product on the Right
Side? The ‘Location Effect’ on Perceived Product Heaviness and Pack-
age Evaluation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (6), 725–38.
Deng, Xiaoyan, and Raji Srinivasan (2013), “When Do Transparent Pack-
ages Increase (or Decrease) Food Consumption?” Journal of Marketing,
77 (4), 104–17.
Deval, Hélène, Susan P. Mantel, Frank R. Kardes, and Steven S. Posavac
(2013), “How Naive Theories Drive Opposing Inferences from the
Same Information,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (6), 1185–201.
Fenko, Anna, Henriët Lotterman, and Mirjam Galetzka (2016), “What’s in a
Name? The Effects of Sound Symbolism and Package Shape on Consumer
Responses to Food Products,” Food Quality and Preference, 51, 100–108.
Gomez, Pierrick, Adilson Borges, and Cornelia Pechmann (2013), “Avoid-
ing Poor Health or Approaching Good Health: Does It Matter? The
Conceptualization, Measurement, and Consequences of Health Regu-
latory Focus,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23 (4), 451–63.
Hagtvedt, Henrik, and Vanessa M. Patrick (2009), “The Broad Embrace of
Luxury: Hedonic Potential as a Driver of Brand Extendibility,” Journal
of Consumer Psychology, 19 (4), 608–18.
Hayes, Andrew F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Con-
ditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, New York:
Guilford.

Hildebrandt, Katherine A., and Hiram E. Fitzgerald (1978), “Adults’ Re-
sponses to Infants Varying in Perceived Cuteness,” Behavioural Processes,
3 (2), 159–72.
Hoegg, JoAndrea, and Joseph W. Alba (2011), “Seeing Is Believing (Too
Much): The Influence of Product Form on Perceptions of Functional
Performance,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28 (3), 346–59.
Jiang, Yuwei, Gerald J. Gorn, Maria Galli, and Amitava Chattopadhyay
(2015), “Does Your Company Have the Right Logo? How and Why
Circular- and Angular-Logo Shapes Influence Brand Attribute Judgments,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (5), 709–26.
Jiang, Yuwei, Lei Su, and Rui Zhu (2019), “The Impact of Financial Resources
on Product Shape Preference,” Journal of the Association for Consumer
Research, 4 (4), in this issue.
Karnal, Nadine, Casparus J. A. Machiels, Ulrich R. Orth, and Robert Mai
(2016), “Healthy by Design, but Only When in Focus: Communicating
Non-verbal Health Cues through Symbolic Meaning in Packaging,” Food
Quality and Preference, 52, 106–19.
Keating, Caroline F., David W. Randall, Timothy Kendrick, and Katharine
A. Gutshall (2003), “Do Babyfaced Adults Receive More Help? The
(Cross-Cultural) Case of the Lost Resume,” Journal of Nonverbal Behav-
ior, 27 (2), 89–109.
Machiels, Casparus J. A., and Nadine Karnal (2016), “See How Tasty It Is?
Effects of Symbolic Cues on Product Evaluation and Taste,” Food Qual-
ity and Preference, 52, 195–202.
MacInnis, Deborah J., and Linda L. Price (1987), “The Role of Imagery in
Information Processing: Review and Extensions,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 13 (4), 473–91.
Mai, Robert, Claudia Symmank, and Berenike Seeberg-Elverfeldt (2016),
“Light and Pale Colors in Food Packaging: When Does This Package Cue
Signal Superior Healthiness or Inferior Tastiness?” Journal of Retailing,
92 (4), 426–44.
Milkman, Katherine L., Todd Rogers, and Max H. Bazerman (2008), “Har-
nessing Our Inner Angels and Demons: What We Have Learned about
Want/Should Conflicts and How That Knowledge Can Help Us Reduce
Short-Sighted Decision Making,” Perspectives on Psychological Science,
3 (4), 324–38.
Nenkov, Gergana Y., and Maura L. Scott (2014), “‘So Cute I Could Eat It
Up’: Priming Effects of Cute Products on Indulgent Consumption,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 326–41.
Ngo, Mary Kim, Carlos Velasco, Alejandro Salgado, Emilia Boehm, Daniel
O’Neill, and Charles Spence (2013), “Assessing Crossmodal Correspon-
dences in Exotic Fruit Juices: The Case of Shape and Sound Symbolism,”
Food Quality and Preference, 28 (1), 361–69.
Nielsen (2016), “Perfecting Package Design,” http://www.nielsen.com
/be/en/insights/news/2016/perfecting-package-design.html (accessed
March 28, 2017).
Noseworthy, Theodore J., and Remi Trudel (2011), “Looks Interesting, but
What Does It Do? Evaluation of Incongruent Product Form Depends
on Positioning,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (6), 1008–19.
This content downloaded from 130.237.165.040 on September 17, 2019 06:02:20 AM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
Volume 4 Number 4 2019 000
Olsen, Mitchell C., Rebecca J. Slotegraaf, and Sandeep R. Chandukala (2014),
“Green Claims and Message Frames: How Green New Products Change
Brand Attitude,” Journal of Marketing, 78 (5), 119–37.
Petrova, Petia K., and Robert B. Cialdini (2005), “Fluency of Consumption
Imagery and the Backfire Effects of Imagery Appeals,” Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 32 (3), 442–52.
Prasad, Ashutosh, Andrei Strijnev, and Qin Zhang (2008), “What Can Gro-
cery Basket Data Tell Us about Health Consciousness?” International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 25 (4), 301–9.
Raghunathan, Rajagopal, Rebecca Walker Naylor, and Wayne D. Hoyer
(2006), “The Unhealthy 5 Tasty Intuition and Its Effects on Taste In-
ferences, Enjoyment, and Choice of Food Products,” Journal of Market-
ing, 70 (4), 170–84.
Scott, Maura L., Stephen M. Nowlis, Naomi Mandel, and Andrea C. Morales
(2008), “The Effects of Reduced Food Size and Package Size on the Con-
sumption Behavior of Restrained and Unrestrained Eaters,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 35 (3), 391– 405.
Sevilla, Julio, and Barbara E. Kahn (2014), “The Completeness Heuristic:
Product Shape Completeness Influences Size Perceptions, Preference,
and Consumption,” Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (1), 57–68.
Sherman, Gary D., Jonathan Haidt, and James A. Coan (2009), “Viewing
Cute Images Increases Behavioral Carefulness,” Emotion, 9 (2), 282–86.
Underwood, Robert L. (2003), “The Communicative Power of Product
Packaging: Creating Brand Identity via Lived and Mediated Experience,”
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 11 (1), 62–76.
van Doorn, Jenny, and Peter C. Verhoef (2011), “Willingness to Pay for
Organic Products: Differences between Virtue and Vice Foods,” Inter-
national Journal of Research in Marketing, 28 (3), 167–80.
van Ooijen, Iris, Marieke L. Fransen, Peeter W. J. Verlegh, and Edith G.
Smit (2017), “Packaging Design as an Implicit Communicator: Effects
on Product Quality Inferences in the Presence of Explicit Quality Cues,”
Food Quality and Preference, 62, 71–79.
Velasco, Carlos, Alejandro Salgado-Montejo, Fernando Marmolejo-Ramos,
and Charles Spence (2014), “Predictive Packaging Design: Tasting Shapes,
Typefaces, Names, and Sounds,” Food Quality and Preference, 34, 88–95.
Voss, Kevin E., Eric R. Spangenberg, and Bianca Grohmann (2003), “Mea-
suring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of Consumer Attitude,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 40 (3), 310–20.
Wang, Tingting, and Anirban Mukhopadhyay (2015), “How Consumers Re-
spond to Cute Products,” in The Psychology of Design: Creating Consumer
Appeal, ed. R. Batra, C. Seifert, and D. Brei, New York: Routledge, 149–67.
Wang, Tingting, Anirban Mukhopadhyay, and Vanessa M. Patrick (2017),
“Getting Consumers to Recycle NOW! When and Why Cuteness Ap-
peals Influence Prosocial and Sustainable Behavior,” Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing, 36 (2), 269–83.
Wansink, Brian (1996), “Can Package Size Accelerate Usage Volume?”
Journal of Marketing, 60 (3), 1–14.
Wertenbroch, Klaus (1998), “Consumption Self-Control by Rationing Pur-
chase Quantities of Virtue and Vice,” Marketing Science, 17 (4), 317–37.